Feature Article
Creating an Effective Peer Response Sheet::
An Empirical Study
Reina Wakabayashi
Kyoto University
ピアフィードバックは推敲の補助のみならず，自律した書き手を育成する
ための方法として有効とされる。本論は，ピアフィードバックのタスク中に
用いられるピアリスポンスシートに着目し，その作成という観点から協働学
習における教師の役割を考察した。調査では，従来のピアリスポンスシー
トと，ピアフィードバックにおける問題点に焦点を当てて新たに作成したピ
アリスポンスシートを学習者が用い，それらの評価を行った。その結果，
学習者はそれぞれのピアリスポンスシートの有用性と困難を報告し，協働
学習における教師の役割および効果的な教材作成を行うための示唆を
得た。
Introduction
In the process-oriented writing classroom, peer feedback is seen as
an important element for both student revision and student motivation.
The utility of peer feedback is not limited to revision support but it is also
an effective teaching methodology which aims to empower students
as writers through reflecting on each other’s
’ss writing. The pedagogical
benefits of peer feedback on student revision and cognition have been
reported from both L1 (English as a first language) (Nystrand & Brandt,
1989) and L2 (English as a second/foreign language) (Chaudron, 1984;
Mittan, 1989) classrooms. In Japan, however, process-oriented writing
instruction is not yet established, and despite its appeal, peer feedback
is under-practiced. The
he reason for the unpopularity of peer feedback in
the Japanese context can be found in the Japanese classroom culture,
where learner-centeredness is a relatively new concept.
Although peer feedback is a learner-centered learning task, teacher
3
Wakabayashi
support is crucial in providing a task environment
ment that promotes
and facilitates learners’ engagement. Teacher support is even more
important when the learners’ level of achievement is at the beginning
stage. Moreover, in the Japanese context, teachers have even more
responsibility for careful oversight, because the technique is introduced
on their initiative.
The purpose of this study is to examine the teacher’s
’ss role in
introducing and supporting the peer feedback process,, focusing on
task material preparation. The Peer Response Sheet guidess the peer
feedback process. Despite the significant role it plays for effective
peer feedback conduct, it is often regarded as an optional supplement
and it has not received sufficient research attention. As an attempt
to examine the teacher’s
’s participation in a learner-centered
centered learning
task, this study investigates the utility of two different formats of Peer
Response Sheet from the student’s perspective, especially as it affects
student performance on the task.
Why Use Peer Feedback?
Process-oriented writing instruction highlights
ts the importance
of providing feedback to revise texts through multiple drafting. It is
desirable that writers can self-diagnose
diagnose the problems in their own
texts. However, providing objective and critical self-feedback may be
possible for expert writers, yet difficult if not impossible for learners
with insufficient writing experience.
For novice writers, feedback from others should support the drafting
process. Among the variety of feedback, teacher feedback might be the
first option for learners in a teacher-learner classroom.. The advantage
of teacher feedback is that learners receive authoritative comments,,
including correction and evaluation. Because of its instructional
function, learners tend to consider teacher feedback to be more helpful
than peer feedback (Nelson & Carson, 1998; Saito, 1994; Zhang,,
4
Wakabayashi, OnCUE Journal, 2(1), pages 3-23
1995). However, research indicates that peer feedback is not inferior
to teacher feedback (Chaudron, 1984; Hedgcock & Lefkowitz, 1992;
Paulus, 1999), and that peer feedback providess some pedagogical
benefits that teacher feedback alone cannot..
Liu and Hansen (2002) summarize the benefits of peer feedback
in four categories: cognitive, social, linguistic, and practical. In the
cognitive domain, peer feedback promotes the students’’ active
participation in learning,, thereby honing students’’ critical and analytical
skills which are necessary for effectively revising their own writing.
Moreover, during peer feedback negotiation,, learners talk about what
they have learned so that they can reflect on their knowledge or skills
to realize what they need to improve. Collaborating with other learners
as reviewers and writers also encourages reader awareness, that is, the
awareness to revise for the readers’’ understanding.. Social benefits refer
to the learners’’ motivation enhancement and apprehension decrease.
Peer
eer feedback generates “group
group dynamics”” (Dörnyei
Dörnyei & Murphey,
ey,
y, 2003;
Guerrero & Villamil, 2000) in the classroom and allows collegial ties
with other students that resultss in a comfortable learning environment.
Linguistically, peer feedback enables learners to practice reading and
writing. The practical benefits include the flexibility of peer feedback
to be utilized in any stage of the writing process (e.g., prewriting,
drafting, editing). These pedagogical benefits appeal to the English
nglish
glish
writing teacher
er in Japan, especially in the university setting where the
students need the explicit teaching of how to write while becoming
autonomous learners.
The
he difficulties of using peer feedback are also reported. “RubberRubberstamp”” peer comments such as “good”
good”” or “bad”
bad”” (Sommers, 1980;
Zamel, 1985) and lack of learner investment (Carson,
Carson, 1992; Carson &
Nelson, 1994, 1996; Nelson & Carson, 1998; Zhang, 1995) are both
claimed to hinder successful peer feedback. The imbalance of learners’’
writing skills and distrust of peer comments also require consideration..
However, these
hese limitations of peer feedback can be overcome to some
5
Wakabayashi
extent by teacher support such as training (Berg, 1999; Hedgcock &
Lefkowitz, 1992; Min, 2005, 2006;; Stanley, 1992; Zhu, 1995, 2001)
and proper guidance in the use of proper task materials.
Why Use a Peer Response Sheet?
The Peer Response Sheet (PRS) is a set of questions about the given
texts for the reviewers to follow and write in their comments during
the peer feedback session. Although peer feedback can be attempted
simply by exchanging texts among writers, PRS is a powerful aid for
effective peer feedback. The three major functions of the PRS are as::
1) a peer feedback process guide, 2) a peer negotiation facilitator, and
3) commentary notes for the subsequent revision. Through planning
question items in the PRS, teachers can present the focus points for
revision, or the important factors of writing. Teachers can even guide
learners’’ peer negotiation process by structuring the question items.
With the PRS, learners would engage in challenging reviews that they
usually would not attempt to do. After the task, the PRS with written
comments functionss as commentary notes for writers to refer to in
revising.
The PRS needs to be task-based and learner-based. Therefore, it
is important on the teacher’s
’ss part to prepare an appropriate sheet
for the writing task at hand. At the same time, it is also important to
take into account the learners’’ cognitive level in designing cognitive
strategies. There
here
ere are three types of questions used in PRSs:
s:: structured
questions (e.g., Does the draft begin with the thesis statement??), semistructured questions (e.g., What is the thesis statement?
statement?), and openended questions (e.g., What would you suggest that the author do to
revise this draft?) (Liu & Hansen, 2002). The level of structuredness
predicts the difficulty of the question items as the more structured the
question items are, the easier it is for learnerss to manage the task. The
three types of questions can be combined in a PRS, yet it is observed
6
Wakabayashi, OnCUE Journal, 2(1), pages 3-23
that structured or semi-structured questions are more commonly used
than open-ended questions.
Empirical Study
Two surveys were conducted to investigate learners’’ perceptions
of the usefulness of two different formats of PRS. For this
is study, the
researcher prepared two different formats of PRS – a “traditional”
traditional””
format and an “alternative”
alternative”” format - for learners to use and examine
their comparative utility in the process of writing comments and oral
negotiation. The purpose of investigating the learners’’ perception of
two different formats of PRS was to develop alternatives that could fill
the gap between the help needed in peer feedback and the existing
PRSs.
Survey 1
Participants
There were 25 participants, all Japanese university students enrolled
in a five-day intensive English course at a university in the Kansai area.
The students were all female with varying majors and grades. They
hey
ey
were selected for the course based on the following two criteria: 1) an
essay about their motivation to learn English,, 2) TOEIC (Test of English
for International Communication) score of under 600.
00.. None of them
had taken TOEFL (Test of English as a Foreign Language) or experienced
peer feedback before.
Materials
Three kinds of materials were used: a TOEFL writing test for the
participants to compose the first drafts, two formats of PRSs,
s,, and a
post-task questionnaire.
7
Wakabayashi
TOEFL Writing Test
For
orr the participants to compose their first drafts, essay topics from
CBT (Computer Based Test) TOEFL writing test were used. The TOEFL
writing test was a good option because it was developed
eveloped to assess the
test taker’s basic academic writing skills required
uired at universities using
English as the medium of instruction. From the sample TOEFL essay
topics provided in the back of the TOEFL bulletin, the topics chosen for
survey 1 were the following:
Topic 1: Some people prefer to live in a small town. Others prefer to
live in a big city. Which place would you prefer to live in? Use specific
reasons and examples to support you choice.
Topic 2: Do you agree or disagree with the following statement?
t?
Children should begin learning a foreign language as soon as they start
school. Use specific reasons and examples to support your answer.
Peer Response Sheet A
PRS-A was developed in reference to the existing PRSs provided
in the previous studies that the researcher obtained (Berg, 1999;
Connor & Asenavege, 1994; Hedgcock & Lefkowitz, 1992; Hosack,
2003; Mangelsdorf, 1992; Mendonca & Johnson, 1994; Min, 2005;;
Ng, 1994; Paulus, 1999; Sengupta, 1998; Zhu, 2001). The PRSs had
a semi-structured or structured format, and the typical question items
they shared were included in PRS-A. The question items were also
selected based on the basic components of the TOEFL writing test
(topic statement, supporting evidence of the topic statement, and the
concluding remark). As in other existing PRSs, the focus was placed
more on the content level matters (e.g., organization) than surface
level matters (e.g., grammatical errors.) The emphasis on content level
problems was based on revision research (Faigley & Witte, 1981;
Sommers, 1980; Zamel, 1985) that found skilled writers apply revision
more at the content level while unskilled writers focus too heavily on
surface level problems. All the question items were written in Japanese
8
Wakabayashi, OnCUE Journal, 2(1), pages 3-23
for their use giving peer feedback in Japanese. Although linguistic
development in the target language could be expected through its
use in peer feedback, Japanese was chosen in this study to put more
emphasis on the peer feedback task itself rather than on the challenge
of using English.
Peer Response Sheet
heet
eet B
PRS-B was developed as an alternative format with more openended questions. The question items were constructed and arranged
based on three ideas of alternative format: 1) more writer participation,,
2) more oral negotiation,, and 3) use of a scale for rating. These three
ideas were included as a reflection of the aforementioned constraints
of peer feedback: rubber-stamp peer comments and lack of learner
investment. Scale rating was included because it was the type of
question not included in the existing PRSs but which could promote
learner engagement. As in PRS-A, all the question items were written
in Japanese.
Post-task Questionnaire
The participants responded to a post-task questionnaire that asked
about the two formats of PRS they used in the peer feedback task. The
questions asked were:
(1) Which Peer Response Sheet (A or B) did you find useful as
reviewer? Why?
(2) Which Peer Response Sheet (A or B) did you find useful as
writer?
riter?
ter? Why?
(3) Which question items did you find effective for peer feedback
(for both A and B)? Why?
(4) Which question items did you find difficult to engage in peer
feedback (for both A and B)? Why?
hy?
y?
(5) Which question items did you find unnecessary for peer
feedback (for both A and B)? Why?
9
Wakabayashi
Procedure
The data
ata collection took place in the last two days of an English
intensive course offered in September 2006. After a mini-lecture on
TOEFL writing, the
he participants engaged in 30 minutes of TOEFL
writing on a paper using the essay topic 1
1. They were allowed to use
dictionaries and the TOEFL sample writing during the test. After the
test session, the participants formed 11 pairs and one group of three
to engage in 30 minutes peer feedback (10 minutes written comment
session and 10 minutes oral feedback session for each partner) in
Japanese using PRS-A.. The revising of the first drafts was done as
homework for the next day. They were allowed to refer to any source
besides the received peer comments..
On the next day, the
he learners composed another essay for TOEFL
essay topic 2. After the writing session, the learners engaged in peer
feedback using PRS-B.. At the end of the second class, the
he participants
responded to the questionnaire concerning their opinions about the
two formats of PRS they used and the peer feedback task..
Results
The responses of the post-task questionnaire revealed that as
reviewers, 7 participants (28%) preferred
eferred
ferred
red
ed PRS-A and 18 participants
(72%) PRS-B. As writers, 2 students (8%) preferred PRS-A while the
vast majority,, 23 (92%),, preferred PRS-B. Table 1 summarizes the
participants’ preferencess between the two formats of PRS.
10
Wakabayashi, OnCUE Journal, 2(1), pages 3-23
Table 1
Summary of students’’ preferences for Peer Response Sheet type (survey
1)
Preference
Ass reviewer
As writer
Peer Response
Sheet A
Number of
Responses*
esponses*
7
Peer Response
Sheet B
18
Peer Response
Sheet A
2
Peer Response
Sheet B
23
Reasons (number of
responses)**
• Revision points were
clearly presented (3)
• Easier to write comments
directly on the drafts (4)
• Questions/responses from
writers were helpful (6)
• Open-ended questions
were helpful (9)
• Scale-assessment was
useful (1)
• Q8 was helpful (1)
• Structured questions are
better than open-ended
questions (1)
• Questions/responses from
writers were helpful (9)
• Open-ended questions
were helpful (6)
• Helpful to have my points
and supports restated by
the reviewer (6)
* The individual preferences for PRS types could vary either as reviewer
or as writer.
** Not all the learners provided the reasons for their preferences.
The
he question items found to be effective, difficult,, and unnecessary
are summarized in Table 2.. For PRS-A,
RS-A,
A,, the question item most reported
as effective was Q5 (check the sufficiency of text development
evelopment with
possible suggestions from the reviewer). Q6 (check the logicality of
the text and explain the possible problems) was perceived to be the
most difficult and Q3 (count the number of supporting examples
examples) as
the most unnecessary among the responses. For PRS-B, Q4 (check the
text’s
’ss persuasiveness using scale-rating)
scale-rating was reported as both the most
effective and the most difficult.. Q6 ((state what you liked about the text
text)
was perceived as the most unnecessary..
11
Wakabayashi
Table 2
Summary of the responses about the question items perceived to be
effective, difficult, or unnecessary (survey 1)
PTRSA
Effective
Difficult
Unnecessary
2
1
1
7
13
4
10
10
2
7
1
3
2
4
6
9
3
4
3
2
8
Q1
Q2
Q3
Q4
Q5
Q6
Q7
Q8
Q9
Q10
PRSB
Q1
Q2
Q3
Q4
Q5
Q6
Effective
Difficult
11
6
10
19
11
6
2
2
2
9
9
4
Unnecessary
1
1
2
2
1
Survey 2
Participants
74 participants were enrolled in two different TOEFL courses at
another university in the Kansai area. They were all sophomore
students from varying majors. TOEFL course 1 was comprised of 24
male and 4 female students and TOEFL course 2 included 42 male and
4 female students. The coursework of these two courses were the same
and were taught by the same professor. At the time of data collection,
one month had passed since the courses started, and therefore the
participants already had experience of TOEFL essay writing.. However,
they
hey
ey had never experienced peer feedback using PRS..
Materials
The same PRS-A, B, and post-task questionnaire used in survey
1 were used. Only the TOEFL writing topics differed from survey 1
because iBT (Internet based test) TOEFL was the target of the courses
instead of CBT TOEFL. Therefore, two types of writing task - independent
task and integrated task - were used to compose the first drafts. The
independent task offers the same type of question as in the CBT test.
12
Wakabayashi, OnCUE Journal, 2(1), pages 3-23
In the integrated task, test takers read a passage on a certain topic and
listen to a lecture on the same topic before a writing task is given. The
following essay topics were used for survey 2:
Topic 1 (independent task): Do you agree or disagree with the
following statement?
Actions speak louder than words. Use reasons and examples to
support your response.
Topic 2 (integrated task): How does the information in the listening
passage add to the ideas presented in the reading passage?
Procedure
The data were collected in two classes
es of each course in November
2006. After 30 minutes of essay writing on a paper, 30 minutes of
paired peer feedback session was held using PRS. The combination
of the types of TOEFL writing task and the variations of PRS were as
shown in Table 3. During the composition, the participants were not
allowed to use dictionaries or any source of help. After the second
class, the
he participants responded to the questionnaire..
Table 3
The combination of TOEFL writing task type and Peer Response Sheet
type (survey
survey 2)
Type of TOEFL writing task
TOEFL course 1
TOEFL course 2
Independent
ndependent task
(writing only)
Peer Response Sheet A
Peer Response Sheet B
Integrated
ntegrated task
(reading, listening, and writing )
Peer Response Sheet B
Peer Response Sheet A
Results
Results of the preferencess between the two formats of PRS for TOEFL
course 1 are summarized in Table 4. Although not all the learners
expressed their preferences for PRS types, in the responses given, 20
participants (77%) preferred
eferred
ferred
rred
red PRS-A and 5 participants (19%) PRS-B as
13
Wakabayashi
reviewers. As writers, 13 students (50 %) preferred PRS-A and 10 (38
%) PRS-B.
Table 4
Summary of students’’ preferences of Peer Response Sheet type (survey
2: TOEFL course 1)
Preference
Ass reviewer
As writer
Number of
responses*
Peer Response Sheet A
20
Peer Response Sheet B
5
Peer Response Sheet A
13
Peer Response Sheet B
10
Reasons (number of
responses)**
• Revision points were
clearly presented (8)
• The
he other Peer Response
Sheet (B) was not
useful (5)
• Difficult
ifficult to evaluate
someone’s
’ss free writing
(1)
• Both sheets were good
actually but there was
not enough time to go
through everything (1)
• The
he other Peer Response
Sheet (A) was not
useful (3)
• It was more simple and
easier (1)
• Scale-assessment was
helpful (1)
• The problems of the
drafts were commented
precisely (5)
• Scale-assessment was
helpful
ful (2)
• Questions/responses
uestions/responses
/responses
from writers were
ere
helpful (2)
• Open-ended questions
were helpful (3)
* The individual preferences for PRS types could vary either as reviewer
or as writer.
** Not all the learners provided the reasons for their preferences.
The question items found to be effective, difficult,, and unnecessary
14
Wakabayashi, OnCUE Journal, 2(1), pages 3-23
are summarized in Table 5.. For PRS-A,
RS-A,
A,, the question item most reported
as effective was Q7,
7,, whereby
by the reviewer underlines the confusing parts
artss
in the text.. Q6 ((check the logicality of the text and explain the possible
problems) was perceived to be the most difficult and Q8,, whereby the
reviewer has to restate the confusing part, as the most unnecessary
among the responses. For PRS-B, the question item most reported as
effective was Q4 (check the text’s
’ss persuasiveness using scale-rating).
scale-rating .
Among
mong the responses,, Q3 ((explain the interpreted support of the main
idea) and Q1 (give comments for the questions asked by the writer)
were most reported as difficult and unnecessary respectively.
Table 5
Summary of the responses about the question items perceived to be
effective, difficult, or unnecessary (survey 2: TOEFL course 1)
PRSA
Q1
Q2
Q3
Q4
Q5
Q6
Q7
Q8
Q9
Q10
Effective
Difficult
Unnecessary
7
7
4
6
11
5
13
7
1
7
1
6
1
6
5
9
3
7
2
3
1
4
4
1
2
PRSB
Q1
Q2
Q3
Q4
Q5
Q6
Effective
Difficult
Unnecessary
3
9
5
11
7
5
5
4
13
3
5
2
7
4
4
3
1
3
1
7
3
Results of the preferencess between the two formats of PRSss of
TOEFL course 2 are summarized in Table 6. As reviewers, 8 participants
(17%) preferred
eferred
ferred
rred
red PRS-A and 35 participants (76%) PRS-B. As writers, 10
students (22%) preferred PRS-A and 31 (67%) PRS-B. There was one
participant who found both A and B helpful as a writer.
15
Wakabayashi
Table 6
Summary of students’’ preferences of Peer Response Sheet type (survey
2: TOEFL course 2)
Preference
Number of
Responses*
esponses*
•
Ass reviewer
Peer Response Sheet A
8
•
•
Peer Response Sheet B
35
•
•
As writer
Peer Response Sheet A
10
•
•
•
•
Peer Response Sheet B
31
•
•
Reasons (number of
responses)**
Easier
ier to write comments
directly on the drafts
(2)
Revision
evision points were
clearly presented (3)
Questions/responses
from writers were
useful (4)
Open-ended questions
were helpful (7)
The other Peer Response
Sheet (A) was not
useful (15)
Revision
evision points were
clearly presented (6)
Questions/responses
from writers were
helpful (5)
Easier to understand (7)
The other Peer Response
Sheet (A) was not
useful (7)
Scale-assessment was
helpful
ful (2)
Partner’s
artner’s
’ss comment was
unpredictable and
interesting (1)
* The individual preferences for PRS types could vary either as reviewer
or as writer.
** Not all the learners provided the reasons for their preferences.
The question items found to be effective, difficult,, and unnecessary
are summarized in
inTable
Table 7.. For PRS-A,
RS-A,
A,, the question itemss most identified
as being effective were
ere Q5 (check
(
the sufficiency of text development
evelopment
with possible suggestions) and Q7
7 (underline the confusing parts
artss in the
text). Q4 (check the relevance of the examples to the main idea
idea) and
16
Wakabayashi, OnCUE Journal, 2(1), pages 3-23
Q8 (restate the confusing part by the reviewer)
reviewer were most perceived
to be difficult and Q3 (count the number of supporting examples
examples) was
most considered to be unnecessary. For PRS-B, the most reported as
effective were Q4 ((check the text’s
’ss persuasiveness using scale-rating)
scale-rating
and Q5 (mark the level of satisfaction with the conclusion using scalerating). Q6 (state what the reviewer liked about text) was most perceived
as both difficult and unnecessary.
Table 7
Summary of the responses about the question items perceived to be
effective, difficult, or unnecessary (survey 2: TOEFL course 2)
PRSA
Q1
Q2
Q3
Q4
Q5
Q6
Q7
Q8
Q9
Q10
Effective
Difficult
Unnecessary
10
7
4
5
14
5
14
6
7
3
7
8
8
10
7
8
6
10
7
6
5
4
10
3
2
2
2
3
4
9
PRSB
Q1
Q2
Q3
Q4
Q5
Q6
Effective
Difficult
Unnecessary
4
15
11
16
16
3
6
3
5
7
8
9
4
1
2
2
5
11
Discussion
In survey 1, PRS-B was overwhelmingly preferred to PRS-A both as
reviewers and writers. The difficulty expressed in using PRS-A indicated
the participants’’ lack of confidence as reviewers and hesitation
towards judging the others’’ writings. Q6 ((check the logicality of the
text and explain the possible problems) in the PRS-A was reported to
be the most difficult task as reviewers. The
he reason for the difficulty was
that the reviewers themselves were not sure how a logical text reads.
Also reported were hesitation towards giving suggestions and fear of
deteriorating the partner’s text quality. One participant even blamed
her low language proficiency in finding the other’s
’ss texts confusing.
As writers, the participants showed appreciation for receiving
17
Wakabayashi
suggestions on their own writing using PRS-A (Q5: check the sufficiency
cy
of text development with possible suggestions from reviewer, was found
to be the most effective), and its positive side - revision points are clearly
presented – was recognized. However, PRS-B was a clear preference
for the participants. By using this
is PRS,, which aimed at more writer
participation and more oral negotiation,, the anxiety of commenting
on the other’s
’ss writing was moderated and active participation in peer
feedback was promoted. Open-ended questions could provide space
for giving positive comments together with rather harsh but necessary
suggestions. The same reason could be given as to why Q10 ((state
what you liked about the text) in PRS-A was liked by the participants.
There is some question here as to whether structured question items
are more helpful than open-ended ones. Open-ended questions could
be more of a psychological help to comment on the other’s
’ss texts.
In survey 2, mixed results were obtained. PRS-A was preferred
to PRS-B by the participants in TOEFL course 1. The
hee utility of PRS-A,
that the revision points are clearly presented, was appreciated. Q7
(underline the confusing parts in the text
text) and Q5 ((check the sufficiency
cy
of text development with possible suggestions from reviewer)
reviewer were
found to be effective. This suggests that the participants expected
practical usefulness of the task material for better revision. However,
from the reviewer’s
’ss point of view, judging the clarity of a text (Q6) was a
challenging task as in survey 1. The utility of PRS-B was also recognized
especially by Q4, the scale scoring of the persuasiveness of a text.
Besides writer participation and oral negotiation, scale scoring was
the other idea that the PRS-B was based on, as an alternative format.
According to the reasons stated, the scale scoring was helpful for the
writers to understand the reviewer’s
’ss suggestions. It was also observed
that almost all the participants as reviewers marked the scale scoring
when the open-ended
ended questions were left blank. This indicates that
scale scoring is helpful both for reviewers to provide peer feedback
and for writers to understand the reviewer’s
’ss points in an activated peer
18
Wakabayashi, OnCUE Journal, 2(1), pages 3-23
negotiation.
otiation.
ation..
The participants in TOEFL course 2 preferred PRS-B to PRS-A for the
major reason that the latter did not match the task at hand. The TOEFL
integrated task demands the test takers to synthesize the information
from reading and listening, but the PRS-A and the other existing PRSs
referred to were constructed to review persuasive essays. This mismatch
emphasizes the importance of task-based material preparation and the
weak versatility of a structured PRS. A mismatched PRS is not only of
little use but could actually be counterproductive. Another possibility
is that the participants in survey 2 took into consideration the difficulty
of the integrated task in not choosing PRS-A. By the same token, in the
TOEFL course 1, the preference for PRS-A,, used for an independent
task,, over PRS-B,, used for an integrated task,, could be a reflection of
the relative difficulty of the integrated task. At any rate, the participants
in TOEFL course 2 found the scale scoring (Q4 and Q5) effective
and expressed the usefulness of the writer’s
’ss involvement in Q1 ((give
comments for the questions asked by the writer) and the small section
prepared for the writer to react to the feedback in Q2 (explain the
interpreted main idea of the text) and Q3 (explain the interpreted
support of the main idea).
Pedagogical Implications
In view of the results of the two surveys, two practical implications
are suggested for creating an effective PRS. The first implication is
that greater focus be placed on the instructional function of PRSs.
s.. The
function of PRSss should not be limited to the guidance
ance of peer feedback,,
but should also serve as task material that teaches learners important
points of writing. Therefore, question items should incorporate the
focal points of the writing in such a way that learners can cope with
them.. For
orr example, in the two surveys, the question item perceived to
be the most difficult asked to judge the logicality of a text. The learners
19
Wakabayashi
expressed the difficulty of the question item saying that they did not
have the capacity to judge the logicality of the text. This problem could
be solved by constructing question items that explains the logicality of a
text in a way that the learners could deal with. Teachers are encouraged
to construct question items while paying close regard to the levels of
the learners so as to better teach the focal points of writing.
The second implication is that affective factors of the learners should
be taken into account. Learners in both surveys shared hesitation in
giving peer comments to others. Compliments, open-ended question
items, and scale scoring all appeared to ease the hesitation,, suggesting
that complimenting and mechanical feedback could be of psychological
help. Moreover, since the learners’’ hesitation can be interpreted as
stemming from their reluctance to be critical towards others’’ writing,
learners need to be reminded that they are not evaluating the others’’
writing,, but are collaborating together on making revisions and
improvements.
Conclusion
For writing teachers, peer feedback can be situated in their
ir teaching
practice as a scaffolding teaching technique by which to promote
learners’’ reflective and critical learning. Underlying this study is the
definition of peer feedback as being, beyond simply a type of feedback,
a teaching methodology for learners’’ cognitive development. Peer
feedback is a potent task by which learners can achieve various
skills needed both as reviewers and writers, to help them become
autonomous writers. Through engaging in the task repeatedly, learners
should get used to giving and receiving critical comments and become
confident reviewers.
The teacher’s
eacher’s
’s role
ole in peer feedback is to support its effective conduct
based on the purpose of the writing and the learners’’ needs,, including
the provision of appropriate and flexible task material, in this study,
20
Wakabayashi, OnCUE Journal, 2(1), pages 3-23
the PRS. Teachers who implement peer feedback must be aware of the
importance of this task material and prepare effective formatss for their
learners. This in turn indicates that teachers who use peer feedback
are those who communicate with their learners and place them at the
center of learning.
In this study, the utility of the existing format of PRS which focused
on helping bring about the subsequent revisionss was affirmed, and
an alternative PRS,, which focused on increased peer negotiation was
well-appreciated by the learners. Although this is a small sample study
of which the results cannot be over-generalized,
-generalized,
generalized, the results suggest the
importance of learner participation in preparing classroom tasks.
s.. This
study limited learner participation to using and commenting on the
newly developed format, yet it is also hoped that both teachers and
learners would be involved in developing a variety of PRS alternatives
that support effective peer feedback.
References
Berg, B. C. (1999). The effects of trained peer response on ESL
students’ revision types and writing quality. Journal of Second
Language Writing, 8(3), 215-241.
Carson, J. (1992). Becoming
ecoming
coming biliterate: First language influences.
Journal of Second Language Writing, 1
1, 37-60.
Carson, J. G., & Nelson, G. L. (1994). Writing groups: Cross-cultural
issues. Journal of Second Language Writing, 3(1), 17-30.
Carson, J. G., & Nelson, G. L. (1996). Chinese students’ perceptions
of ESL peer response group interaction. Journal of Second
Language Writing, 5(1), 1-19.
Chaudron, C. (1984). Evaluating writing: Effects of feedback on
revision. RELC Journal, 15(2), 1-14.
Connor, U.,, & Asenavage, K. (1994). Peer response groups in ESL
writing classes: How much impact on revision?? Journal of Second
21
Wakabayashi
Language Writing, 3(3), 257-276.
Dörnyei, Z., & Murphey,
ey,
y, T. (2003). Group dynamics
ynamics in the language
anguage
classroom.
lassroom. Cambridge: Cambridge Language Teaching Library.
Faigley, L., & Witte, S. (1981). Analyzing revision. College
Composition and Communication, 32, 400-415.
Guerrero, M. C. M. de, & Villamil, O. S. (2000). Activating the ZPD:
Mutual scaffolding in L2 peer revision. The
he
e Modern Language
Journal, 84(i), 51-68.
Hedgcock, J., & Lefkowitz,, N. (1992). Collaborative oral/aural
revision in foreign language writing instruction.. Journal of Second
Language Writing, 4, 51-70.
Hosack, I. (2003).
2003).
). The effects of anonymous feedback on Japanese
university students’’ attitudes towards peer review. Ritsumeikan
hougaku bessatsu, 1, 297-322.
Liu, J.,, & Hansen, J. (2002). Peer response
esponse in second
econd language
anguage writing
riting
classrooms.
lassrooms. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
ress.
ess.
Mangelsdorf, K. (1992). Peer reviews in the ESL composition
classroom: What do the students think? ELT Journal, 45, 274-284.
Mendonca, C. O., & Johnson, K. E. (1994). Peer review negotiations:
Revision activities in ESL writing instruction. TESOL Quarterly,
28(4), 745-769.
Min, H. T. (2005). Training students to become successful peer
reviewers. System, 33(2), 293-308.
Min, H. T. (2006). The effects of trained peer review on EFL students’
revision types and writing quality. Journal of Second Language
Writing, 15, 118-141.
Mittan, R. (1989). The peer review process: Harnessing
arnessing students’’
communicative power. In D.. M. Johnson & D.. H. Roen (Eds.),,
Richness in writing.
writing (pp. 207-219). New York: Longman.
Nelson, G. L., & Carson, J. G. (1998). ESL students’ perceptions
of effectiveness in peer response groups. Journal of Second
Language Writing, 7, 113-132.
22
Wakabayashi, OnCUE Journal, 2(1), pages 3-23
Ng, R. (1994). Revision in the ESL class: A comparative study of the
effectiveness of peer and self-feedback. Hong Kong Journals
Online, 6, 61-81.
Nystrand, M.,
., & Brandt, D. (1989). Response to writing as a context
for learning to write. In C. M. Anson (Ed.), Writing and response:
esponse:
Theory, practice,
ractice, and research.
esearch. (pp. 209-230). Urbana, IL:
National Council of Teachers of English.
Paulus, T. (1999). The effect of peer and teacher feedback on student
writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 8(3), 265-289.
Saito, H. (1994). Teachers’’ practices and students’’ preferences for
feedback on second language writing: a case study of adult ESL
learners. TESL Canada Journal, 11(2), 46-70.
Sengupta, S. (1998). Peer evaluation: “I am not the teacher.” ELT
Journal, 52, 19-28.
Sommers, N. (1980).
0).
). Revision strategies of student writers and
experienced writers. College Composition and Communication,
31(4), 378-87.
Stanley, J. (1992). Coaching student writers to be effective peer
evaluators. Journal of Second Language Writing, 1, 217-233.
Zamel, V. (1985). Responding to student writing. TESOL Quarterly,
19(1), 79-101.
Zhang, S. (1995). Reexamining the affective advantage of peer
feedback in the ESL writing class. Journal of Second Language
Writing, 4(3), 209-222.
Zhu, W. (1995). Effects of training for peer response on students’
comments and interaction. Written Communication, 1(4), 492528.
Zhu, W. (2001). Interaction and feedback in mixed peer response
groups. Journal of Second Language Writing, 10(4), 251-276.
23